Nunn v. Standig et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/16/17 GRANTING 6 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be collected in accordance with the court's CDC order filed concurrently herewith. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM NUNN,

12

No. 2:16-cv-2463-EFB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

STANDIG, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.

17
18
19

§ 1983, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
I.

Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

20
21

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect

22

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2).

24

II.

Screening Requirement and Standards

25

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

26

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion

28

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
1

1

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

2

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

3

A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)

4

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and

5

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the

6

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

7

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).

8

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8,

9

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

10

U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

11

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked

12

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

13

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of

14

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

15

678.

16

Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.

17

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

18

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

19

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a

20

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v.

21

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the

22

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

23

III.

24

Screening Order
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to § 1915A and finds

25

that the allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for relief. The

26

complaint alleges that plaintiff experienced severe pain following a fall that occurred on October

27

1, 2014 and that he was subsequently denied adequate medical care. He claims that “no diagnosis

28

was made,” “[n]o adequate pain medication was prescribed,” and that he “was refused an MRI.”
2

1

He names Dr. Standig, Dr. Lee, Dr. Greenleaf, Nurse Milburn, Nurse Kayl, and LVN Madrigal as

2

defendants, but includes no allegations showing how any of these defendants was personally

3

involved in violating plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. As such,

4

plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to state a proper claim for relief. Although the Federal

5

Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of

6

the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.

7

1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants

8

engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. Because plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief, the

9

complaint must be dismissed.

10

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint, if he can allege a cognizable

11

legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal

12

theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must

13

afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints).

14

Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set

15

forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. Any amended complaint must cure the

16

deficiencies identified above and also adhere to the following requirements:

17

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally

18

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v.

19

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a

20

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is

21

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation).

22

It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).

23

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. George

24
25

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself

26

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended

27

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the

28

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114
3

1

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter

2

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

3

1967)).

4

The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

5

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed.

6

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.

7
8

In addition, the court notes that the following legal standards may apply to plaintiff’s
intended claim for relief.

9

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal

10

constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under

11

the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d

12

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

13

An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the

14

defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between

15

the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v.

16

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978).

17

Plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional

18

conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Plaintiff must

19

identify the particular person or persons who violated his rights. He must also plead facts

20

showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged violation.

21

To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on the denial of medical care, a

22

plaintiff must establish that he had a serious medical need and that the defendant’s response to

23

that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); see

24

also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical need exists if the failure to

25

treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton

26

infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may be shown by the denial,

27

delay or intentional interference with medical treatment or by the way in which medical care is

28

provided. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988).
4

1

To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both be aware of facts from

2

which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also

3

draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Thus, a defendant is liable if

4

he knows that plaintiff faces “a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing

5

to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. A physician need not fail to treat an inmate

6

altogether in order to violate that inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights. Ortiz v. City of Imperial,

7

884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). A failure to competently treat a serious medical condition,

8

even if some treatment is prescribed, may constitute deliberate indifference in a particular case.

9

Id.

10

It is important to differentiate common law negligence claims of malpractice from claims

11

predicated on violations of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

12

In asserting the latter, “[m]ere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not

13

support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir.

14

1980) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-106 (1976); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391

15

F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004).

16

IV.

17

Summary of Order
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted.

19

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected

20

in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and

21

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

22

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The complaint

23

must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Amended

24

Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this

25
/////
26
27
28

/////
/////
5

1

action for failure to prosecute. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a

2

cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United

3

States Marshal.

4

Dated: November 16, 2017.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6